Learning about side counts

[Eye of the Eagle]

A 4 column helps reduce variance. But not avoid it by any stretch of the imagination. However, you know why you lost more often than not.

Why don't one of these 4 column people post their count and explain it? Don't want to hear that it is to difficult or the casino is watching. Otherwise I am in the Lone Wolf, Mungo camp. It is just a sim played on your computer.

[Three]

What is the Boz count ? All these super natural counts someone please explain them!

Boz Count is up to him to disclose. He told it to me and for a level 3 count with balanced ace side count and count overlaps (which is why he made a comment his count is very similar to mine but my count the overlap implies a third count that his overlap doesn't. My overlap triangulates on a more specific deck composition when the info is used nonlinearly. Using the info linearly there isn't a big difference between our counts). It seemed to have a lot going for it like a Playing Count of Hiopt 2 equivalent PE of .668 and IC of .91. The combined count has a BC of .992 similar to Halves. It is a difficult count to master but should slightly outperform both Halves and Hiopt2/ASC in my opinion. The amount it outperforms would determine if the added difficulty is worth learning but once your skill set has advanced enough to master it there is no reason you shouldn't be using it. Imagine the playing strength of Hiopt2 with the betting strength of Halves.

[Jabberwocky]

Boz Count is up to him to disclose. He told it to me and for a level 3 count with balanced ace side count and count overlaps (which is why he made a comment his count is very similar to mine but my count the overlap implies a third count that his overlap doesn't. My overlap triangulates on a more specific deck composition when the info is used nonlinearly. Using the info linearly there isn't a big difference between our counts). It seemed to have a lot going for it like a Playing Count of Hiopt 2 equivalent PE of .668 and IC of .91. The combined count has a BC of .992 similar to Halves. It is a difficult count to master but should slightly outperform both Halves and Hiopt2/ASC in my opinion. The amount it outperforms would determine if the added difficulty is worth learning but once your skill set has advanced enough to master it there is no reason you shouldn't be using it. Imagine the playing strength of Hiopt2 with the betting strength of Halves.

Does Flash use it? That would be a major endorsement.

[Eye of the Eagle]

For me it's simply a different way of viewing the cards. 4 groups. Tens, 69s, 25, Aces kept on fingers. Divide the middle group to 67s and 89s. Think of it as remember the ever changing last 4 digits of a phone number. Now, depending on the situation, you could group the 67s with the 25s and the 89s with the tens. All group are divisible by 8,4, and 2. So no matter what you can always assess the cards played which also reflects the ones that still remain. More importantly, you also know the percentages.

Sounds simple to me.

[Eye of the Eagle]

First linear and non-linear. This is how you use information. A linear count reduces everything to a number for a decision and the decision is based on simple number line comparison. A non-linear approach to using information reduces things to more than one dimension, which describes the decision using a number line and a point on it as is done with traditional TC decisions. In the linear approach betting decisions are ranges on the number line and a playing decision is a point on the line where you deviate from basic strategy. You reduce the info gathered to a number and compare it to the number line. Nonlinear approach to using information uses more than one dimension to define a decision barrier. You might be in 2 dimensions and the decision barrier is a wavy line across the plane. Or you might be in 3 dimensions and the decision barrier is a warped plane across the 3 dimensional space. Describing more dimensions is tricky but it is the same concept of a decision barrier one dimension less than the dimensions used to look at the info gathered.

Almost all counts are linear counts. The main differences are level of count and ace neutral, which are always ace side counted, or ace reckoned. You can go a step further and use a balanced ace side count. This is essentially keeping two balanced counts. You can get quite creative with counts when you do that. You can add a fraction of one count to get a level 9 count when you are counting a level 1 count and a level 3 count. This allows for the ultimate combined count for betting and a simple yet quite strong count for playing. Some specialized counts don't use a main count like Tarzan's 3-column count which counts 2-5, 6-9, T's, and A's. That is actually over simplified. Of course he uses a non-linear approach to using the info gathered.

Most of these techniques have limited gain in BJ but the skills needed to master them are a must when you start playing some BJ variants. It is much easier to develop advanced skills and then switch to aBJ variant which is a completely different game than it is to switch and learn advanced counting skills at the same time. Most that held onto the simple approach idea that is adequate for BJ get killed if the don't embrace complexity in BJ variants.


I was not talking so much about global variance but that is affected when you attack variance of components of the game. The variance I am talking about is the variance associated with betting decisions. The variance associated with playing decisions. The latter has to do with the correlation of count tags to the playing decisions. How fast EV accumulates after the index is exceeded is a good indication of count tag correlation to the decision. Betting variance refers to how accurately you are betting which has nothing to do with BC. An indication of betting accuracy is what your max bet is for a given BR, RoR and spread etc. The playing decisions strength figure into this as well but it is mostly about betting accurately. The higher the min and max bet for a given BR, RoR and spread etc the more accurate you are betting. Which is a way of saying betting variance is low. Each piece of the game has its own variance. Those variances will determine you optimal bets for your BR, RoR and spread etc. Then you will also have a global variance which is how most people use variance as a term. By controlling variance at the micro level of betting and playing you can bet more. This causes EV to be a lot higher along with the natural increase in EV that comes from betting and playing more accurately. The bigger bets may bring global variance up to what it was or close to it but the EV will be much higher.

SCORE = EV^2/Var
n0 = 1,000,000/SCORE
CE = k*(EV^2)/(Var^2), where k is a representation of your kelly fraction. It can be ignored when uderstanding the impact of changes to EV and Variance.

The above may be the 3 most important formulas in BJ. You can see the importance of EV AND Variance in each.

Could you explain how to learn this count and how to apply it in real life casino conditions? Step by step would be appreciated.

[Boz]

HA moses. So funny man!...

I opened up a couple cans of worms, I see. Given everything I've read and knowing my tastes for accuracy I have to say that I will not be using HiLo much longer.

I am going to start practicing Hi-opt II and side counting aces. Any advice on how to start would be appreciated. Waiting on my book, ZMF... Or should I learn the Boz count, Boz?

No, you shouldn't learn the Boz count. I'd strongly discourage Hi-opt 2 as well. I'd ask how many indices you have learned for hi-lo. If you've learned them all (or a few dozen), are playing mostly shoes, and still want to move up, I'd suggest an RPC-variant like RPC, CR-count, or FELT. If you're exclusively playing pitch, I'd maybe suggest Hi-opt 1 with a balanced Ace SC. I'm not a fan of the ace density estimation method at all.

[Three]

I'm not a fan of the ace density estimation method at all.

If you are up to it, balance the ace with the 2. The 2 as +1 and the A as -1. Your main count is Hiopt1 for pretty strong playing decisions and the Combined Count is Hilo for betting. A few matchup where the A is an important high card you can use Hilo for the playing decision. This way the strength of your side count does not depend on your ability to make accurate quarter deck estimates. Plus you have a stronger system than either individually. I think someone dubbed it Hilo-lo.

[Three]

Could you explain how to learn this count and how to apply it in real life casino conditions?

What count? I listed info that talked about the differences between counting techniques not any specific count.

[Eye of the Eagle]

What count? I listed info that talked about the differences between counting techniques not any specific count.

I know that. I am talking about the count that you use.

[Boz]

Could you explain how to learn this count and how to apply it in real life casino conditions? Step by step would be appreciated.

1) You use an ace-neutral count (Play count).
2) You side count the difference in tag values between the ace-neutral count and a stronger betting count in a secondary balanced count (Side Count).
3) You combine the side count to the ace-neutral count for betting decisions (Betting Count).
4) You add the absolute value of the side count to the Play Count for insurance (Nonlinear Insurance Overlap??).
5) You use the betting count for play decisions in which the Aces are high cards (Nonlinear Overlap??).

When playing a shoe and penetration is less than 5.25/6, it's pretty easy to show that doubling EV, or whatever the claim, is better than computer perfect play. So I am curious about what important way my count supposedly differs, since I wouldn't mind playing better than what is apparently possible--and neither would anyone else. Computer perfect play destroys single deck because there are so few cards after the shuffle point. It's that simple. I would advise you dismiss claims that lack any proof and seem too good to be true. It's all fluff; there's nothing there.

[Three]

I know that. I am talking about the count that you use.

My count is not public knowledge. There are a half dozen top AP's that know my count but I only trained one to use it. I am not sharing my intellectual property. Too much money to be made using it.

[LoneWoLF]

This is all irrelevant. Hilo is all you need in today's shoe games. William are you playing highly dealt pitch games. If not, ignore everything three has to say

[LoneWoLF]

My count is not public knowledge. There are a half dozen top AP's that know my count but I only trained one to use it. I am not sharing my intellectual property. Too much money to be made using it.

Yea that SCORE of 500 and hitting your EV in 10 minutes is some feat. I wouldn't disclose it either